Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With the way economics are in this country right now, doesnt it make TOTAL sense for....

1. Require people on welfare to submit to manditory drug testing

2. Require a license to have children

The second is completely unconstitutional. Fundamental rights and all that.

The fist isn't a 4th amendment issue, because applying for welfare is voluntary. the problem that arises is what happens if a person has children, and fails a drug test. Are we going to take everybody's kids away if they can't afford to keep them?

The current system is the result of two factors: the inability of the government to stop people from having kids under the Constitution, and the fact that even with fraud keeping kids with their parents on welfare is better and cheaper than institutional care.

And to extend Polonius' point, even if people were required to be licenced to have children, you would run into the same problems of "what do you do with unlicensed children, and their parents?"

As Polonius said, the second is unconstitutional.

To my mind the first is simply unwise. It creates a situation in which the state would very nearly be required to accept the burden of multiple children. If you want to reduce the total welfare expenditure, then it makes far more sense to look at the amount of federal funding being used to back each program.

We should just cut welfare guys, then we don't have to spend any money at all.

Ooh, that's a good idea too. The welfare guys won't be able to have children if we cut them up.

You have to eat the babies. Then dip your feces in acid.

NO EVIDENCE.

I see this thread having a long lifespan.

It's been alluded to, but this is what it comes down to: You can't tell people what to do.

BUT... You can tell people what they have to do in order to get free money. So, in my opinion, it's not a terrible idea to attach all sorts of strings to welfare and other similar programs.

For example, mandatory temporary sterilization for female welfare recipients. There are various methods of birth control that last months to years, and require no active participation from the woman.

I don't think there's anywhere NEAR the political traction to get this sort of thing done, but I think the knee-jerk reaction to it (from both sides) is really unfounded. It's a logical thing to do, and it's not permanent.

In general, I think our welfare system is too concerned with making things convenient for the recipient, and not enough with saving money.

I'd rather see everyone have food and a place to live, even if they're not treated with the utmost respect by the process. Get everyone taken care of at baseline levels, worry about feelings later.

Maybe a license. But really drug testing? When i was born my mom lost her job.(not sure why) She went on welfare and raised me. She then got off it 3 years later and she hated being on welfare but she had no choice.
She said to the lady "i am gld to be getting off this and back to work"
The lady said " you are why we do this people in you situation." People think that anyone who is on welfare is a lazy slob who is being a drain. They are not all.

People think that anyone who is on welfare is a lazy slob who is being a drain. They are not all.

I don't think that way.

I just think that it's not reasonable to expect the government to judge who is truly lazy, and who is well intentioned.

As a result, I think our solution should be to cover everyone as effectively as possible. Since we currently fail to do so, and we have only so much money to do it with, we need to be more cost effective.

Phryxis wrote:In general, I think our welfare system is too concerned with making things convenient for the recipient, and not enough with saving money.

I'd rather see everyone have food and a place to live, even if they're not treated with the utmost respect by the process. Get everyone taken care of at baseline levels, worry about feelings later.

I am not entirely sure what you are talking about here. What do you mean by 'convenient for the recipient'? The lack of respect for people receiving social services, further, the contempt for people in such a position, is a very real and common occurrence. If people were given more support to actually become self sustaining, I would be 100% behind it; an abstract plan to save money, by further removing the dignity of people on hard times, seems very odd. I don't know if that is what you are talking about, but you could clarify, I'm sure.

My problem with many services, is that they do not further any attempts from an individual, to better themselves. They can almost act like an obstacle in many situations, to becoming self-sustaining. It is more cost effective to provide an apartment/studio for a person, than it would be to keep them in a shelter, or an equivalent living situation, overall.

General article

To the point of first-time homelessness.

Transitional housing would definitely appear to be more expensive than permanent. I support the idea of co-ops, in which people can learn useful skills, but not the idea of shelters, in which people simply learn to sleep with a knife in their boot.

Anyway, this threads title is provocative and misleading...

Phryxis wrote:

People think that anyone who is on welfare is a lazy slob who is being a drain. They are not all.

I don't think that way.

I just think that it's not reasonable to expect the government to judge who is truly lazy, and who is well intentioned.

As a result, I think our solution should be to cover everyone as effectively as possible. Since we currently fail to do so, and we have only so much money to do it with, we need to be more cost effective.

Given the rather tiny amount of the budget wellfare programs absorb (as opposed to entitlements or defense) I think this argument is a bit silly. Rather than forced temporary sterilization how about we just don't spend 240 thousand dollars on every javelin missile launcher we buy? Or how about we hold off on buying a few more of those multi billion dollar stealth cruisers when our largest naval opponent in the last few decades has been somalian pirates. Whether wellfare is or is not cost effective isn't really being discussed in this thread, and I haven't seen anything pertaining to that at all. Just kneejerk reactions to the ways we can punish people "leeching" on wellfare when a logical review of the issue would place priorities elsewhere while letting the system just do it's thing during a time of recession. It's not like children born to wellfare parents has ever actually been a fiscal issue. It's just a touchy subject with almost no real impact on the reality of the countries budget situation.

With the way economics are in this country right now, doesnt it make TOTAL sense for....

1. Require people on welfare to submit to manditory drug testing

2. Require a license to have children

Sorry to derail the thread, but where did you get your avatar?

If people can get away with living off welfare and not working, more power to 'em.

I think this argument is a bit silly.

It's an argument based on reality. You can say we "should" spend more, but we don't. Given that we don't, we have to get more mileage out of what we do spend.

No question, military equipment seems vastly overpriced for what it is, whereas Kraft Mac n Cheese is very cheap.

But that doesn't change budget allocations.

My feeling is that we should spend whatever amount is most cost efficient. If you fail to give somebody money, their kids get health issues, and then you pay for those health issues at a rate a hundred times what it would have been to just feed them, that's stupid.

Sorry to derail the thread, but where did you get your avatar?

Seriously, it's ridiculously distracting.

It's an argument based on reality. You can say we "should" spend more, but we don't. Given that we don't, we have to get more mileage out of what we do spend.

No question, military equipment seems vastly overpriced for what it is, whereas Kraft Mac n Cheese is very cheap.

But that doesn't change budget allocations.

My feeling is that we should spend whatever amount is most cost efficient. If you fail to give somebody money, their kids get health issues, and then you pay for those health issues at a rate a hundred times what it would have been to just feed them, that's stupid.

But this argument seems devoid of the most central tenet of it. Whether or not the system itself is acting inefficiently and if proposed draconian controls would be either necessary or effective at all. The thread is based on a provocative and rather baseless set of choices predicated on a seemingly indifferent causal statement. It's kind of a gakky thread and blood isn't getting squeezed from this stone so far as I can see.

If this is an argument based on reality can it not still be a silly one?

I picked "other" because there was no option for;

6. Licensing for children is absolutely ridiculous, based on long discredited and stupid ideas of social darwinism and I really have no idea why the board is so fixated on it. Drug testing would be alright if it was targeted at welfare recipients who picked up red flags as likely users, however it would likely be administered to all welfare recipients and a complete waste of money. There is also no value in identifying the person as a drug user if we just use it to dump them off the system, where they'll almost certainly turn to crime to support their habit. The only value, to the individual, to society and to the state's budget, comes if a positive test is used to put a person into rehab, but rehab is costly and the benefits are hard to measure, nor do they have that 'tough on crime' appeal the electorate seems to love so much, and so a scheme like that is unlikely to be undertaken.

But more than anything I'd really like to know why people think there is so much money to be saved by squeezing the bottom third of society, while they're so willing to ignore the graft and corruption among the top 5%. Fraud from welfare programs is almost miniscule compared to the cost of illegal and immoral business practice, yet we fixate on the number of welfare recipients that must be taking our money because they must be on drugs. Strange.


If you could repost the survey with the above added that'd be awesome.

Excellent post, sebster. Feeling the loss that badly?

sebster wrote:I picked "other" because there was no option for;

6. Licensing for children is absolutely ridiculous, based on long discredited and stupid ideas of social darwinism and I really have no idea why the board is so fixated on it. Drug testing would be alright if it was targeted at welfare recipients who picked up red flags as likely users, however it would likely be administered to all welfare recipients and a complete waste of money. There is also no value in identifying the person as a drug user if we just use it to dump them off the system, where they'll almost certainly turn to crime to support their habit. The only value, to the individual, to society and to the state's budget, comes if a positive test is used to put a person into rehab, but rehab is costly and the benefits are hard to measure, nor do they have that 'tough on crime' appeal the electorate seems to love so much, and so a scheme like that is unlikely to be undertaken.

But more than anything I'd really like to know why people think there is so much money to be saved by squeezing the bottom third of society, while they're so willing to ignore the graft and corruption among the top 5%. Fraud from welfare programs is almost miniscule compared to the cost of illegal and immoral business practice, yet we fixate on the number of welfare recipients that must be taking our money because they must be on drugs. Strange.


If you could repost the survey with the above added that'd be awesome.

Blood got squeezed right from that stone.

Polonius wrote:Excellent post, sebster. Feeling the loss that badly?

Which loss? Australia getting thrashed in the soccer? The West Coast Eagles getting completely belted by bottom placed Richmond? Or me setting up my indoor cricket team for an easy semi-final win, only to see the last pair choke and score a negative 7 to see us fall 6 runs short of a finals position?

We did win the Rugby Union though. I even went along, although I have no idea what any of the rules are for. What the hell is illegal binding and why did it produce two penalty tries?

sebster wrote:
We did win the Rugby Union though. I even went along, although I have no idea what any of the rules are for. What the hell is illegal binding and why did it produce two penalty tries?

Assuming there was a maul involved, illegal binding results when players participating in the maul did not pass through the gate before binding. You'll see this happen a lot near the goal line when a team is desperately trying to prevent a try from being scored. A penalty try results from this when it was probable that a try would have been scored were it not for the illegal binding.

dogma wrote:Assuming there was a maul involved, illegal binding results when players participating in the maul did not pass through the gate before binding. You'll see this happen a lot near the goal line when a team is desperately trying to prevent a try from being scored. A penalty try results from this when it was probable that a try would have been scored were it not for the illegal binding.

They were both from scrums, but they were on the try line.

That's...odd. Any play that leads to a scrum inside of 5 meters is supposed to lead to a scrum at 5 meters.

dogma wrote:That's...odd. Any play that leads to a scrum inside of 5 meters is supposed to lead to a scrum at 5 meters.

It could have been five metres off, I was watching from high in the stands, on the opposite side of the field. They formed scrums a couple of times then the penalty try was awarded for illegal binding. Then the same thing happened again later in the game.

Ah, ok. Sometimes officials will award penalty tries in order to move the game forward when one team repeatedly uses an illegal technique to deny the other team a try.

ignore the graft and corruption among the top 5%.

I dunno, that's a generalization that requires some support.

The most obvious stat I'd point to, is that the top 1% of American earners pay 40% of all income taxes.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

It's endlessly infuriating to me to hear the left use their standard "the rich need to pay their fair share" line. It's stupid for two reasons:

1) Clearly they pay far, far more than their "fair share" already, at least by any normal standard of fairness.
2) Taxes are not an instrument of social justice, they're an instrument of REVENUE GENERATION. You don't set taxes and tax brackets based on who you think is a "greedy jerk" you set it so that government revenue is maximized.

With that in mind, I have no problem with tax increases, so long as they legitimately increase government revenue over the long term.

Phryxis wrote:BUT... You can tell people what they have to do in order to get free money. So, in my opinion, it's not a terrible idea to attach all sorts of strings to welfare and other similar programs.

For example, mandatory temporary sterilization for female welfare recipients. There are various methods of birth control that last months to years, and require no active participation from the woman.

I am one of the more liberal people on these boards, I would expect, except when it comes to a) welfare programs and B) the "right" to have babies.

I see welfare as something that is hugely abused. I would rather accidentally pay welfare to abusers than risk missing out people who genuinely deserve it, but I like the idea of temporary sterilization for both men and women under some circumstances to qualify for welfare.

I also get annoyed when women talk about the "right" to have babies. I see it as a massive privilege which you should earn by working hard enough to be able to raise the child. Under some circumstances, I would not mind people applying for a license to have a baby if they are on welfare, but in general I see it is terrible that women have children when they cannot raise them.

(On a side note, I get very angry when I see women taking advantage of their employers via maternity leave rules. I consider this to be almost theft. What I mean is when a woman gets pregnant, takes her full allowance of maternity leave, comes back to work for the minimum possible period, then resigns from her job to raise the baby. That is just cheating. It is dishonest and should not be allowed. Also, I get annoyed that men get feck all paternity leave compared to mothers. That is discriminatory. Men should be entitled to share their partner's maternity leave, or at least have some sort of system that allows them more paternity leave than they get now. It need not be "equal", as, of course, women have medical reasons for needing to be off of work, but the current system is not fair, and the inequities cannot be explained entirely by medical reasons, only social ones, and frankly, if there is to be equality elsewhere, there should be in this too.)

Phryxis wrote:

ignore the graft and corruption among the top 5%.

I dunno, that's a generalization that requires some support.

The most obvious stat I'd point to, is that the top 1% of American earners pay 40% of all income taxes.

I'm not talking about income taxes or who's paying what. I'm talking about graft and corruption. Do you think the actions within the finance sector were entirely above board, taken in good conscience with due consideration given by each agent to their positions as stewards of the capital they were placed in charge of? Do you believe the subsequent market crash represents a greater impact to the welfare of the population at large than the amount paid in welfare in the last year to drug users?

Because I'd answer yes to both, and then wonder why people spend so much time worrying about the problem that is costing so much less. I think it's because most corruption is very boring, you get the odd Madoff scandal, but for the most part it just can't compete with stories about women with six kids to six different dudes, where all the kids are running wild across the neighbourhood.

People form their opinions accordingly, assuming the latter is a much bigger deal than it is, while they probably never even consider the former at all.

1) Clearly they pay far, far more than their "fair share" already, at least by any normal standard of fairness.
2) Taxes are not an instrument of social justice, they're an instrument of REVENUE GENERATION. You don't set taxes and tax brackets based on who you think is a "greedy jerk" you set it so that government revenue is maximized.

Sure, but my point was about corporate malfeasance, not tax policy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Ah, ok. Sometimes officials will award penalty tries in order to move the game forward when one team repeatedly uses an illegal technique to deny the other team a try.

Okay, but in terms of a scrum what is illegal binding?

sebster wrote:Okay, but in terms of a scrum what is illegal binding?

Binding on the arm/leg/shorts which is looser, you can pull down the other side more easily = collapsed scrum.

sA